Dove Chocolate Sayings, for Sociologists

1.  It's always darkest, when your camera is obscura.

2. It's not hegemony if you've got chocolate.

3. Turning your life around takes 180 degrees, but running a panopticon takes 360.

4. You may be stuck with the form, but you are the one who gets to decide on the content.

5. Which presentation of your self are you going to have today?

6. If you want a social fact, you have to be social!

7. Sociologically imagine your possibilities today.

8. Keep your thoughts on the ideal type, when you're not dealing with an ideal world.

9. If you're not aware, it's probably just false consciousness.  

10. Signifier?  Signified?  You be the decider.

"So let's not disappoint God..."

+Yes+

+President Obama issues and order to allow GLBT partners visitation rights.  A ridiculous practice to not allow this in the first place. 

 +"So let's not disappoint God," The rallying cry of Iranian cleric who blames loose women for earthquakes (see "what?" below).  Second greatest rallying cry ever, after Hedley Lamarr's (Blazing Saddles) "go and do that voodoo, that you do, so wellllll!"

+kudos to Willamette Week for declaring Kate Brown the Rogue of the Week for practices that hurt minority parties.  We need more discussion and participation by all political parties and their ideas.

-No-

-The Vatican, allowing a Vatican priest and cardinal to suggest that criticism of the Catholic Church and the Pope is akin to the persecution of the Jews.  Not even remotely like it.  Under.  Any.  Circumstances.

-Back to segregation.  A Mississippi county attempts to create "racially identifiable schools." Yikes.  The federal courts have stepped in, but the fear of a black or minority dominated school seems to be pervasive in America. 

?What?

? Coffee from as processed through civets and retrieved from their dung.  Heard about it.  My rule for coffee--no shit is involved in the process at any point.

?Iranian cleric suggesting that women are the cause of earthquakes.  Adds whole new meaning to "You make the the earth move for me..."

?A split between the Palin and Paul tea-partiers.  I've always wondered if these people would be able to share a tea bag.

Yes. No. What?

+Yes+
+ China and Brazil stepping up and working on saving or reducing impact on forests.

+Passage of a healthcare bill which will impact 30 million U.S. citizens.  Hard to believe have lagged for so long in this area.

+Britain, finally taking on Israel's abuse of cloned British passports.  The article, however provides us with a nice ?What? below...


-No-
-States suing to protect us from National Healthcare Reform.

-Trying to make the case that you are bipartisan, when you offer no solutions to problems.  The Republican Party is the current leader, but there have been plenty of this on both sides of the aisle in the past.

-Continued denial of abuse by the Vatican, and certainly a lack of willingness to punish those involved.  The days of the "fueros" or exceptions, where the Church can stand behind its own law, are long gone.


?What?
?Britain takes on Israel abuse of passports, using its Serious Organised Crime Agency.  This would explain Monty Python skits.  A lot.

?The continued popularity of competitive eating. Seriously.  As if we don't have enough health issues and problems with healthcare...

Federalism vs. States' Rights

Having failed to "protect" people from healthcare at the federal level, we now see that the states will join the fray as allies of the privileged.  Once again, the role of the state and federal governments seems to be to protect our citizens against being served by the very people we have elected to have our back.  Instead, it seems that we are given the backside.  Most recently several states are now filing a lawsuit over healthcare as a way to protect the rights of their citizens.  When Jefferson and Adams where engaged in their historic debate over rights of states vs. the federal government, what they could not have foreseen was a system where it did not matter.  Each made their case that there were rights that needed to be protected, and that a federal government would intrinsically behave differently than a state government.  Instead, what we have is an alliance of the privileged at both the state and federal levels who are interested in making sure government does not serve anyone with their healthcare needs.  


It is this ideological twist that is crucial.  Rather than thinking in the best interest of those who they serve, the crucial goal is to undercut healthcare for those who need at most at whatever cost and whatever level possible.  Again, those in opposition, Republican and Democrat alike, suggest that the key here is to be in opposition, to make sure that no changes are made, to prevent the rise of socialism; and at the same time suggesting that efforts to provide for others are proof of a lack of bi-partisanship.  The end goal, is not to serve others, not even their needy constituents, but it is to shut the system down.  


This proves that it there is nothing intrinsic to federalism vs. statism that protects a people.  Instead, what is needed is a counter-dialogue to this ideology that works against looking at each other as human beings that deserve to have basic healthcare needs met.  It is not socialism, since all major religions argue for this, basic philosophy argues for it.  Rather, the argument needs to be made that it is only a rigid ideology, unthinking and uncaring with regard to others among us, that lead us to the conclusion that we need not provide for the least among us who lack basic healthcare for themselves and their families.  


It is important to note also that this counter-dialogic argument needs to be sustained-it cannot be short-term or abandoned by those who thing that the battle has been won with the passage of a healthcare bill.